Jump to content

Great point by Dan Boyle....


Guest jammer2
 Share

Recommended Posts

Dan Boyle makes a great point here. The NHL only requires 8 teams to veto anything....so if the other 22 teams wanted to play today, Betteman and his richy rich cronies would block it in a second. How can this be? How can a select 8 profitable teams dictate to the 22 other teams? How is this allowed to happen? Who makes up these ridiculous rules?

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=406814

"Boyle believes the fact the NHL requires just eight owner votes to veto any proposals from the players allows a certain group of owners to control the process."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan Boyle makes a great point here. The NHL only requires 8 teams to veto anything....so if the other 22 teams wanted to play today, Betteman and his richy rich cronies would block it in a second. How can this be? How can a select 8 profitable teams dictate to the 22 other teams? How is this allowed to happen? Who makes up these ridiculous rules?

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=406814

"Boyle believes the fact the NHL requires just eight owner votes to veto any proposals from the players allows a certain group of owners to control the process."

Good Jeebus! This keeps getting better! How could they set up a frickin' system like that. Columbus and such minus well not even have a vote...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@idahophilly This solidifies what I have been saying forever, the select group of NHL money makers does indeed control the league and the process of the lockout...the others have literally no say! Bettman simply does as the richy rich owners want....he is their puppet!

Then the arguement they use about the weak teams is a farse! The rich teams KNOW this lockout will only hurt the small teams. Ok, here is a deep theory! What if the the stronge teams are trying to kill off the weak teams on purpose!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, why would the RICH teams be trying to "level the playing field" and supprt the poor teams that they have to revenue share with and forced the cap on them?

What benefit do the Flyers gain - competitively on the ice - by having Nashville financially secure and able to compete for free agents (ahem).

In short, why do we think it's the "richy rich" guys who are the ones backin Bettman?

You think the Wild, Preds, Bolts, Canes, Stars, Ducks, Vestes Bleu, Flames, Oilers, Sens, Sabres or some varition thereof would be saying "drop the puck let's play!" if the mean, nasty guys who ARE MAKING ALL THE MONEY weren't holding them back?

Not sure I get the logic there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short, why do we think it's the "richy rich" guys who are the ones backin Bettman?

Why? This is why:

Fans still deride Bettman as a “basketball guy,” but the only N.H.L. owners who predate him are Ed Snider of the Philadelphia Flyers, Jeremy Jacobs of the Boston Bruins, Mike Ilitch of the Detroit Red Wings and the Wirtz family of the Chicago Blackhawks.

Jacobs, the chairman of the Board of Governors, and Snider, who as chairman of Comcast helped secure the N.H.L.’s $200 million deal with NBC, are his strongest supporters.

“In the old days, basically the owners ran the league and almost ran it into the ground,” Snider said last December. “Now it’s Bettman’s league. He’s a great commissioner. Basically he’s the force behind everything we do.”

http://www.nytimes.c..._r=1&ref=hockey

Edited by JackStraw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@JackStraw Yes, it's like an ol' boys club....the long lasting huge money makers really run the show. The Jacobs, Sniders, Ilitch and Writz's...that's who is really driving this show. In my estimation, Bettman is a puppet of these overlords....he does what they say, and acts in *their* best interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@radoran "In short, why do we think it's the "richy rich" guys who are the ones backin Bettman?"

It's simple, the rich owners are making money hand over fist. They have constructed the rules and the process to fit their needs, including needing only 8 vote to veto anything they don't like, that does not fit their needs. Every other billion dollar corporation requires a majority to veto (or at least close to that). The rich owners implement the salary floor to insure the poor teams are not a threat to them, they can't compete for players as well, because they are hung with this hefty 50 million dollar annual price tag for doing business. This keeps them under the rich owners feet, and allows a system where the rich teams can prosper. Bettman in turn keeps this little charade going....and helps the rich owners accomplish their goals...more money.

This is from the "interesting take" thread started by DGG

This blog/article explains it best rad, I found it very informative....and it went a long way to forming/confirming my thoughts on the whole rich owner vs poor owner debate..

http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2012/8/16/3247491/how-the-nhls-big-markets-use-the-cba-to-bankrupt-the-small-markets

"What it comes down to is this: once the players' share of HRR has been set, the only remaining question is how it gets divvied up among them. The NHL's proposal would result in money tending to be concentrated in older veterans, but that doesn't help the small market teams because as long as they're required to spend a certain amount on salaries each year there's no real financial advantage for them in having to spend that money on expensive older UFAs rather than their own young players. They're still going to be spending more money than they're earning, and none of these proposals changes that. Just like the previous CBA, this one is designed to make the big markets more money. Everything else is just window dressing."

Basically there are 8-10 huge money making power brokers who dictate the terms of this league. Betttman knows who they are and snuggles up to them at all costs. Like I said before, he knows where his bread is buttered. The small market teams exist to drive up the profit margins of the 8-10 leaders, they are essentially their little money making "bitc**s. The NHL has no plans on changing this, in fact it's encouraged for the small market teams to lose money, to the point where the NHL itself, through the big spenders will take over a team for 5 years and drag the process on, in an attempt to stall a team from leaving and making them more money. This is all accomplished through the salary cap floor requirement.

This is why guys like Basilile would never be allowed into the little club, he would make to much noise if he was not in the 8-10 leader bracket and expose them for what they are....a legalized mafia where the underlings pay homage to the "dons" by ponying up their cash.....even to the extent where they go bankrupt in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know... That's allot of supposition. I'm not saying it isn't true but that's allot of words and thoughts put into allot of peoples mouths that have not said that. Again, there is a logical path to follow in the theory. I'm just not sure the "conspiracy" is that many layers deep... I think the end result is pretty much the same though. Take whatever path you wish to get there but in the end its a few rich teams pulling the strings and the league will NEVER solve the problem of the poor teams...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@jammer2

I hadn't seen that reference before jammer, basically the chart makes a lot of sense. The difference between these teams isn't so much the number of fans in the stands as it the price the fans pay to watch the games. The lower income teams can't charge the same admission in order to fill the seats, or try to fill the seats.

I'm not sure why though the small market teams just don't speak out. Sure they will be fined by Bettman, but I would think if it is true that only 8 teams control the league......then the other 22 teams could band together and go public. Set up an investigation and maybe the 8 membered mafia falls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@hf101 I think as time goes by, the 22 owners currently being good little soldiers will go rouge. They know the season will be lost after going through the same thing in 04. Hopefully there is enough new owners out there that they don't put up with the shenanigans that are common in these negotiations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@jammer2

agree. I'm glad the players are speaking out

Fehr was interviewed by the hockey news http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/48600-Oneonone-with-Donald-Fehr.html

If anything the puzzle pieces are starting to come together for us.....the fans.

the media, and social networking are playing a much bigger role than the last go around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@radoran ok, it's probably not 22 teams, but any team who *almost* broke even last year, has a respectable season ticket fan base and or comes close to selling out a fair number of games would be interested in playing I'd believe. Think about it, teams like Florida, Carolina, Phoenix, Tampa Bay etc, they have fought tooth and nail to get the season ticket fan base they have built up over the year....for teams like that, this lockout does not do anything constructive for them...they lose all the way around. The NHL offer does not even address their core issues, such as cap floor or a fair and equitable way to share the money and split up the billions (like the NFL and MLB do).

The bottom line is the big 8-10 don't want change, and have the veto power to prevent it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@radoran ok, it's probably not 22 teams, but any team who *almost* broke even last year, has a respectable season ticket fan base and or comes close to selling out a fair number of games would be interested in playing I'd believe. Think about it, teams like Florida, Carolina, Phoenix, Tampa Bay etc, they have fought tooth and nail to get the season ticket fan base they have built up over the year....for teams like that, this lockout does not do anything constructive for them...they lose all the way around. The NHL offer does not even address their core issues, such as cap floor or a fair and equitable way to share the money and split up the billions (like the NFL and MLB do).

The bottom line is the big 8-10 don't want change, and have the veto power to prevent it.

Phoenix is owned by the league...

And Phoenix, Florida, Carolina and Tampa are the classic examples people use to say that the game is in the wrong markets and the reason that they "need" this lockout to put the economic situation "right."

I think Buffalo might be in the position you are talking about. I would bet there are eight owners who would rather be playing hockey than going through the lockout.

I'm not at all saying that the NHL proposal is in any way realistic.

I'm just saying that the idea that there is an evil cabal of 8 "richy rich" owners (all of whom would rather be able to spend without a salary cap) is preventing the hockey-loving supermajority of owners who just want to drop the puck and play hockey is a serious misreading of the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@radoran Then, there is a lot more people than myself misreading things....just say'in.....

Well, fine, but I'm asking flat out who the 22 teams who "want to get back to playing" and are being "stymied" by the richie riches who are insisting on the lockout.

Again, I do believe that there are owners who are against the lockout. I don't for a moment believe there are 22 of them. I would be somewhat surprised if there were even eight.

Owners who would rather play while negotiating? Sure. Again, though, I doubt that there are 22 of even those.

Boyle's overplaying his hand is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@radoran

Ellen writes and phrases it much more eloquently than I ever could. It's not really a question of being super profitable to enter the NHL ol' boys club, but the combo of profit AND longevity. She really explains the NHL hierarchy perfectly here....a little long but very informative read, I highly recommend it.

http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2012/09/21/the-waiting-game-time-and-power-in-the-nhl/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@radoran

Ellen writes and phrases it much more eloquently than I ever could. It's not really a question of being super profitable to enter the NHL ol' boys club, but the combo of profit AND longevity. She really explains the NHL hierarchy perfectly here....a little long but very informative read, I highly recommend it.

http://blogs.thescor...wer-in-the-nhl/

exactly:

Between the owners who want a lockout in order to make more money and those who want one because they’ll lose less money, Bettman has his eight votes and more besides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@radoran Yes, it's not as clear cut as 8 against 22, but I suspect, as time goes on...some owners will break away from the power group and state their case publicly. The ones on the side of "want the lock-out because they will lose less" will only go so far, if it destroys the teams fan base, it's a fight not worth fighting anymore. It's one thing to save some money, quite another to destroy a business ...BUT as stated, Gary will always have the 8 votes to get done what he feels is necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@radoran Yes, it's not as clear cut as 8 against 22, but I suspect, as time goes on...some owners will break away from the power group and state their case publicly. The ones on the side of "want the lock-out because they will lose less" will only go so far, if it destroys the teams fan base, it's a fight not worth fighting anymore. It's one thing to save some money, quite another to destroy a business ...BUT as stated, Gary will always have the 8 votes to get done what he feels is necessary.

IT'S NOT WORTH FIGHTING NOW. They're trying to grow fanbases and establish new markets and they've done it with two lockouts in 10 yaers - threatening fanbases in even traditional hockey markets.

To act as if the owners are behaving in any sort of a rational manner is ridiculous.

I suspect you will see some maverick owners coming forward - especially if there's another threat of a whole lost season. Terry Pegula comes to mind. I am sure there are others.

But will there be/are there 16? Would many of those same owners want a CBA that could be dictated by a slim majority? Would we have a salary cap if a slim majority was all that was needed?

I suspect not on all counts.

The league bylaws exist for reasons and if some owners are now getting bitten in the tuckus by the same measures that saved them previosly, that's business.

How many Canadian team owners want the lockout ended and would be happy with the current CBA indefinitely? I'll wager not many.

Snider just keeps reminding me more and more of Jerry Jones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...